SlateScott talking race and IQ: very cool and truth seeking. Revealing SlateScott's powerword: what's the public interest in that?
SlateScott talking race and IQ: very cool and truth seeking. Revealing SlateScott's powerword: what's the public interest in that?
On 16 March 2024, I sat down to chat with New York Times technology reporter Cade Metz! In part of our conversation, transcribed below, we discussed…
The actually not even really a hatchet job NYT piece on SlateScott that mostly just called him a weird little guy has nonetheless created a festering psychic wound that oozes to this day. Here manifests as an interview with the author on LW. See also: discussion on reddit.
My favorite section, talking about how people are mad that be brought up Scott's notorious race stuff™️:
CM: That's great. That's a valid position. There are other valid positions where people say, we need to not go so close to that, because it's dangerous and there's a slippery slope. The irony of this whole situation is that some people who feel that I should not have gone there, who think I should not explore the length and breadth of that situation, are the people who think you should always go there.
Reporter: "Uhmm it seems like y'all flirt with racism an awful lot tbh."
Zach: "And that's actually my position."
19God reporting on these creeps must have been such a nightmare
6
Wait. Why the fuck is that weirdo talking to Cade Metz? What the hell is going on here!?!
14Unbelievable kill shot, how the fuck did Davis leave it on this? Some secret agenda to hand Metz a fuckin’ victory wreath? Does he think this makes Metz look bad?
CM: What his argument to me was is that it violated the ethics of his profession. But that's his issue, not mine, right? He chose to be a super-popular blogger and to have this influence as a psychiatrist. His name—when I sat down to figure out his name, it took me less than five minutes. It's just obvious what his name is. The New York Times ceases to serve its purpose if we're leaving out stuff that's obvious. That's just how we have to operate. Our aim—and again, the irony is that your aim is similar—is to tell people the truth, and have them understand it. If we start holding stuff back, then that quickly falls apart.
I get that out front Davis’s whole thing is total transparency, but if that’s really all that’s going on here, how did it not end on something utterly banal? How is this orbital homerun the end of the conversation?
20A rat scoring an own goal shouldn't be surprising, and a rat, especially ZMD, not understanding how to edit should also not be surprising.
4
loved how Metz is literally just explaining his job in terms that make obvious sense, and the commenters go off to construct a stupendous conspiracy theory
also, like. we have the email where Scott confesses that he started SSC to promote reactionary ideas and race science. Zack has even posted about said email.
18That being said, Metz is just wrong about journalism here:
> "And whatever people think, my job at the Times is to give everyone their due, and to give everyone's point of view a forum and help them get that point of view into any given story"
The job of the NYT is not even remotely to give every POV a forum, unless he is very clumsily saying "my job is to request comment from the subject of an article."
11
I'd really like to know the back story on this interview too. I realize weirdness isn't exactly distinctive when it comes to rationalists, but Zack is in a league of his own.
5
the comments are even dumber
13The amount of hand-wringing about "why is it so important to trace how these people are connected to Peter Thiel or Elon or other incredibly wealthy right-wing ideologues who have a measurable impact on people's lives."
Why can't the journalists just join our special club where we talk about changing the world in the most disconnected way imaginable. It's like they think we're trying to take over the world or something.
16On a historical analogy, Scott's case seems quite analogous to the historical case of Baruch Spinoza.
JFC
13Fun to see gwern in there presumably telling a fib. I wonder what really happened when Metz “ghosted” him? I particularly enjoyed, this time, watching whatever uppers he’s on these days kick in (or wear off?) about halfway through writing the footnote he added to that comment.
10It's "fun" to see them fail to grasp that a journalist (or outsider) doesn't need to have read all their blogposts, and that "who talks to who" is basic journalism.
If only you read those glorious posts you would be enlightened, and if you somehow still disagree then you are either a liar, an NPC, or have not read them carefully enough, which I can prove by using shibboleths on our communities accepted doctrine.
It always boggles the mind when people fail to grasps others as being real.
12you know, I still don't actually know who gwern is and what they're like. the amount of times I've seen gwern links pop up from some questionable origins has thus far left it in my "yeah no fuck this" pile of places on the internet to go to
8I particularly enjoyed, this time, watching whatever uppers he’s on these days kick in (or wear off?) about halfway through writing the footnote he added to that comment.
wow that remark is one massive cause of missing the blatantly fucking obvious, and/or intentionally being obtuse about it
e: then again, these are the people that put their SP into logorrhea and then only after dumping like 90% do they sometimes realize they might need it in other areas too
5
Usually I'd agree with Zack, you should definitely not give everyone's (e.g. the rationalists') point of view a forum. Luckily they are very good at shooting themselves in the foot.
7